<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (10) TMI 196 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34075</link>
    <description>Refund of excise duty paid in cash on exempt clearances was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the duty shown in the invoices had not actually been collected from the buyer. The decisive factual basis was that there was no evidence that the duty burden had been passed on, unlike cases involving collection followed by later adjustment through credit notes. On those facts, the refund claim was admissible in cash because the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 196 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34075</link>
      <description>Refund of excise duty paid in cash on exempt clearances was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the duty shown in the invoices had not actually been collected from the buyer. The decisive factual basis was that there was no evidence that the duty burden had been passed on, unlike cases involving collection followed by later adjustment through credit notes. On those facts, the refund claim was admissible in cash because the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>